Academic Papers on 9/11
Some of the papers below are discussions papers published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. "Debunkers" have claimed that discussion papers in this journal are not peer-reviewed. This is consclusively shown to be incorrect here.
PhD Physicist Grabbe: Peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Engineering Mechanics - Discussion of "Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth," by Jia-Liang Le and Z.P. Bazant
Anders Björkman Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"
Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal - 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust...' - Also see 'Debunker' Pat Curley: the King of Scientific Peer-review
James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"
Not an open journal publication: Steven E. Jones, “What accounts for the molten metal observed on 9/11/2001?”, Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, 2006.
Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones - Published in "The Environmentalist"
9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal
Dr. Crockett Grabbe published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"
116th Peer-reviewed Paper Published in Journal of 9/11 Studies: 'The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis'
Commenting on the Journal of 9/11 Studies, physicist Steven Jones Steven, PhD. has noted that:
The Editorial Board which oversees content and standards has not yet expressed concerns about the standards. The board has eleven members, seven of whom hold Ph.D. degrees, and one is a structural engineer (retired)...Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti pointed out the following on the JREF Forum regarding the standards at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, which features 11 papers as of 7/16/12:
Based on these facts, as well as my own experience in editing scientific publications before this one and authoring or co-authoring over forty peer reviewed publications, yes, I think that people should take the Journal articles seriously.
On an earlier thread, concerning whether or not Mark Roberts' work on 911 was peer reviewed or not, I was surprised to hear from both him and Ryan Mackey, that although their respective papers appear on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, that they did not actually submit them to that journal. They both said that others had posted them there with no interaction with the authors of the papers.The Work of the National Institute for Standards and Technology Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed!
What this means is that there could have been no review feedback and potential correction by the authors due to any peer review claimed by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. Hmm!
Ryan Mackey says straight out that his paper is not peer reviewed by a formal process, although he did put it out in the public domain to be viewed and commented on by many.
What is the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Studies claiming for their peer review process?
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
NIST Whistleblower - Scroll down on page
The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7
The NIST Investigation - National Institute for Standards and Technology Encounters Resistance, Pretends to Investigate
Debunking the Only Bad Review of 'The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False'
Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST